I join commonsense conservatives in endorsing Richard Mourdock to be the next Senator from Indiana. Conservatives of all stripes are uniting behind Richard Mourdock. It’s not just Indiana that benefits from sending the right Senator to serve for the right reasons; the nation as a whole benefits, and that is one reason why the eyes of so many around the nation are focused on the Indiana race.

Indiana deserves a conservative in the Senate who will fight for the Hoosier State, uphold our Constitution, and not just go along to get along with the vested interests of the permanent political class in D.C.

Richard Mourdock is the conservative choice for Indiana. Senator Lugar’s 36 years of service as a Senator are appreciated, but it’s time for the torch to pass to conservative leadership in Washington that promises to rein in government spending now.

Good call by Palin. Citizens United released a poll yesterday showing Mourdock leading by five thanks to a 63/24 split in his favor among tea partiers. Victory here is distinctly possible if those voters turn out; this endorsement will help make that happen, and if it does she’ll get some credit for it. And if not, she’ll get no blame: Remember, both Romney and Mitch Daniels have endorsed Lugar so he’s gotten the Republican establishment’s gold-star seal of approval. As such, if he squeaks through it’ll be no surprise, just a moral victory for grassroots conservatives in making a close race of it instead of an actual victory. For Palin, it’s a smart way to start positioning herself as a counterweight to/critic of Romney on the right. She can’t be too hard on him during the campaign since job one for all Republicans is beating Obama, so she and other tea partiers will have to find subtler ways to signal principled disagreement. This is one way to do it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

That’s laughable. You ‘bots really just don’t have any arguments left at all anymore, do you? Other than the dumbass tactic of proclaiming victory and then high-fiving yourself.

ddrintn on April 28, 2012 at 8:01 AM

If begrudgingly supporting the Republican nominee who I didn’t vote for in the primaries makes me a bot then I guess I’m guilty.

Interestingly you’ve hit on part of why I don’t give you credit for being much of a deep thinker. Aside from the fact you think Romney’s guilty of something but not running to the nearest microphone to stick up for Palin after Tucson when few if any other political figures did the it (you point to Fred, my guy from ’08 who bombed out after a horrible campaign and traded in politics for peddling reverse mortgages, and Rudy, another ’08 failure who keeps on refusing to run for office again and spends his days commenting), you also pigeonhole people into groups very quickly based off a bunch of assumptions you’ve just made and rather than honestly and intellectually examine those assumptions you prefer stick with it and play the victim card from time to time. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no shame in not being a deep thinker and you’re more than free to continue to offer your opinions but well, you know….. Or do you?

In the interest of being honest I should admit that I too was once a hardcore Palinista. I’ve said I’m currently on my fourth Republican presidential candidate, well Palin was my first and she was for a long time. I have been where you are now and I just want you to know it’s okay. There is nothing in the world wrong with reconsidering some of your opinions if new facts come to light or new events transpire. If you do then anyone who might look down their nose at you for it is someone you can do without.

In the interest of being honest I should admit that I too was once a hardcore Palinista.

alchemist19 on April 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Now THAT’S what’s called a “concern troll”. Sort of as if I had said “Now I used to be a DEVOTED Romney fan. I was right where you are today. So if you’re a drooling ‘bot with an incurable urge to burn every goshdarn TrueCon you come across, don’t feel bad, I was there too blahblah…”

Oookay. You provided nothing to show I’m “lying”. The National Review piece talks about leaks from, hold on for this, The McCain Campaign. It has nothing to do with Romney and it’s ultimately all about Nicole Wallace who we now know more about thanks to “Game Change”. I have no desire to defend her but she’s not a Romney employee; The second link is a big nothing, dating back to October 2008 before the election (but hey, now I know Amanda Carpenter is good at spreading rumors). Madden provides a perfectly reasonable opinion that Palin was not a “seasoned” veteran and had not been “vetted”. He didn’t spread any “rumors” he just questioned the wisdom of choosing her as the veep candidate. You are free to disagree with that opinion but it’s hardly evidence of “trashing” Palin. As I’ve repeatedly noted “criticism” is not necessarily synonymous with “sliming” or “trashing”. Sometimes it’s just…criticism. You may not like it but to attach some nefarious intent is a huge stretch.

The third story talks about an incident Mitt we’ve already covered here, where he tweeted a reprimand of the culprits and praised Palin; Your 4th and final link to “Operation Leper” is a complete fail:

Initial list:

Nicolle Wallace

Note: I’ve deleted McKinnon. I trust the source, but I’m getting very strong denials from other people I trust and McKinnon is very adamantly denying it. We’ve confirmed the other two.

Note: Press reports about Steve Schmidt were wrong and I have thus deleted him from the list.

Ooops. So, we’re back to Nicole Wallace who worked for McCain not Romney.

Look, There’s no doubt the media went after Palin with a vengeance, and the Andrew Sullivan/Trig conspiracy in particular was beyond despicable. In a just world he’d be shunned and living in exile on a deserted island for his disgusting behavior. But once again, this is not Romney’s doing nor is it the doing of anyone here at Hot Air as no one here advanced those insane theories.

Oh, come on. You can stand the idea of Obama II a lot more easily than you can stand the thought that (eeeewwwwwww!!!) Sarah Palin would have the remotest likelihood of ever coming near the White House. You don’t fool anyone with this TrueBlueConservative garbage.

ddrintn on April 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

No, you freaking jackass, I can’t stand the thought of Obama. I have provided trenchant, scathing criticism of him since 2006, so it’s completely insane for you to suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, if Palin had run (maybe you missed the fact she didn’t) and If Palin were the nominee I’d support her and I’d vote for her, just as I did when McCain/Palin were the ticket in 2008. I’m not a member of the Playpen Party who fantasize about reaching conservative nirvana at last in 2016 after an awakening which would surely occur after 4 more years of the Marxist grifter.

No, you freaking jackass, I can’t stand the thought of Obama. I have provided trenchant, scathing criticism of him since 2006, so it’s completely insane for you to suggest otherwise.

Buy Danish on April 28, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Freaking jackass. Most of your “trenchant, scathing criticism” up until October was directed at…guess who? Anyone? Anyone at all who read Buy Danish’s sparkling contributions to the site prior to Palin’s announcing she’s not running?

Aside from the fact you think Romney’s guilty of something but not running to the nearest microphone to stick up for Palin after Tucson when few if any other political figures did the it (you point to Fred, my guy from ’08 who bombed out after a horrible campaign and traded in politics for peddling reverse mortgages, and Rudy, another ’08 failure who keeps on refusing to run for office again and spends his days commenting),

alchemist19 on April 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

By the way, “brilliant”? “Deep thought”? Why didn’t Romney or any other prominent GOPers defend Palin and the TP after Tucson? You still didn’t answer that one. I think it’s pretty much agreed that she was unjustly slimed, right? Or is that point open to debate as well?

I praised Palin in 2008 and defended her many times against criticism from others (and some unfair threads written by Allah). I also criticized Palin for many things she deserved to be criticized for (many about relatively minor but nevertheless annoying issues I had/have about her speech and appearance). Later I began to criticize her for very substantive issues as follows: Her coy antics last summer, her Iowa speech, her attempts to undermine our candidates (including but not limited to her use of veiled innuendo), her support of Newt after his crony ties to Freddie Mac were revealed and after he’d acted like a soldier for OWS, her denial that Perry had gone after Mitt for “Vulture Capitalism”, her “rage against the machine” nonsense, her push for a brokered convention, her wink wink wink that she was available.

However, despite all of that, I’d vote for her in a New York minute if she was now the presumptive nominee. It would be tough, but I’d vote for Herr Dr. Paul if it helped toss O and his grifter wife out of the office.

It looks like there might be some truth to those rumors former Mitt Romney supporters are already trying to clear Sarah Palin from the GOP presidential deck to make room for their man Mitt in 2012.

Former Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden was particularly harsh on Palin in an interview on CNN. His criticism of Palin is especially noteworthy because we’re only days from the election.

In a spot with Campbell Brown Madden said Palin’s wardrobe flap showed how “unseasoned” Palin is.
BROWN: And, Kevin, even defending this whole controversy over the clothes, the RNC buying all the clothing, it keeps the story going, and, as Dana pointed out, one more day where it’s dominating the coverage.

KEVIN MADDEN, FORMER ROMNEY CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY: Yes. And that’s an indication just how unseasoned Sarah Palin is as a national candidate.

Yesterday on The Weekly Standard’s blog, Bill Kristol fingered that anonymous top aide making speculative assessments about Sarah Palin’s mental state: “In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin’s mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign was Steve Schmidt.”

Schmidt, who headed up day-to-day operations for the McCain campaign, angrily denied the accusation to Jonathan Martin. However, Randy Scheunemann, a top foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign, backed up Kristol’s claim saying Schmidt has “a congenital aversion to the truth” and that he had heard Schmidt speculate about Palin having postpartum depression two different times.

I also criticized Palin for many things she deserved to be criticized for (many about relatively minor but nevertheless annoying issues I had/have about her speech and appearance). Later I began to criticize her for very substantive issues as follows:

Buy Danish on April 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

In a nutshell, she didn’t lick Romney’s shoes. Deep thought there. Come on. Most of your petty “criticisms” popped up every time a Palin FB posting was linked. “Did she really write this? WHO wrote this for her? And ooooooh, look there…a split infinitive…very unpresidential…Mitt would never make that mistake in his regular op-eds in reputable publications…”

Why are you cutting and pasting those stories? Nothing changes anything I already said about each one of them. And that Weekly Standard story is, er, filled with rumors and innuendo with all sorts of people from McCain’s campaign implicated, but most of the allegations were proven wrong. Where’s the outrage about the use of rumor and innuendo? Hmmmm?

In a nutshell, she didn’t lick Romney’s shoes.blah blah balh.

Bitter clinger: No, in a nutshell, she made an absolute fool of herself last summer and onward. I’m hardly the only one who noticed – she lost many former supporters in the process of her summer long tease. And if you don’t believe me when I say she worked to “undermine our candidates” (not just Romney), MadCon admitted that here at this fun, fun, fun thread.

Perhaps you’d be better of watching SNL reruns of Jack Handey’s “Deep Thoughts” than try to make your case here…

Why are you cutting and pasting those stories? Nothing changes anything I already said about each one of them. And that Weekly Standard story is, er, filled with rumors and innuendo with all sorts of people from McCain’s campaign implicated, but most of the allegations were proven wrong. Where’s the outrage about the use of rumor and innuendo? Hmmmm?

Buy Danish on April 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Most of the allegations were provin wrong? By who, Steve Schmidt? LOL

LInk?

And why was KEVIN MADDEN, FORMER ROMNEY CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY trashing Palin before the election?

By the way, “brilliant”? “Deep thought”? Why didn’t Romney or any other prominent GOPers defend Palin and the TP after Tucson? You still didn’t answer that one. I think it’s pretty much agreed that she was unjustly slimed, right? Or is that point open to debate as well?

ddrintn on April 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

The elected Republicans, including the huge number of Tea Party freshmen, probably left it alone because the claim was ridiculous and didn’t deserve any more attention than was already being wasted on it, plus it wasn’t any of their business.

The track record of politicians not jumping into media-on-media fighting is fairly long. Rush gets attacked all the time (the St. Louis Rams ownership flap with the fake quotes comes to mind), he’s at least as big a star as Palin, but I don’t recall elected Republicans running to his defense either. The media and the people who are either in or are seeking elected office are playing different games. I’m more than happy to take the opportunity to explain the difference to you though. :-)

Most of the allegations were provin wrong? By who, Steve Schmidt? LOLAnd why was KEVIN MADDEN, FORMER ROMNEY CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY trashing Palin before the election?

Let’s here some more of your BS..:)

idesign on April 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

STOP SHOUTING – I’M NOT DEAF.

I already answered this^^^. Perhaps you are BLIND?:

The second link is a big nothing, dating back to October 2008 before the election (but hey, now I know Amanda Carpenter is good at spreading rumors). Madden provides a perfectly reasonable opinion that Palin was not a “seasoned” veteran and had not been “vetted”. He didn’t spread any “rumors” he just questioned the wisdom of choosing her as the veep candidate. You are free to disagree with that opinion but it’s hardly evidence of “trashing” Palin. As I’ve repeatedly noted “criticism” is not necessarily synonymous with “sliming” or “trashing”. Sometimes it’s just…criticism. You may not like it but to attach some nefarious intent is a huge stretch.

Next…

Most of the allegations were provin wrong? By who, Steve Schmidt? LOL

For one thing, As I noted^^^your own link to the RedState story absolved him in the “UPDATE”. Maybe you bookmarked the original non-blockbuster blockbuster, and never noticed that? “LOL”. Then, when I noted that update you just chose to ignore it? Meanwhile, if you read the Weekly Standard story many names are tossed around in what is nothing but, hold on for this, speculation among the Times and The Standard. Don’t you think it’s a wee bit irresponsible to publish such speculative, unproven theories? If the NYTimes used the same techniques you’d be rightly irate.

Well, you know, there are some people out there who I don’t give much credit for being deep thinkers and there are a certain special select few who can’t clear the hurdle even if I remove the “deep” part.

The elected Republicans, including the huge number of Tea Party freshmen, probably left it alone because the claim was ridiculous and didn’t deserve any more attention than was already being wasted on it, plus it wasn’t any of their business.

Well, I’ll tell you what, Deep Thinker ™. We’ll have to keep those very words in mind when the anti-Romney memes start flying, OK? OK.

The track record of politicians not jumping into media-on-media fighting is fairly long.

alchemist19 on April 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Sorry, Deep Thinker ™ , but Romney at the time was no more a “politician” than Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Or Alan Dershowitz, for that matter, who defended Palin more than Romney ever did. It’s a good thing some people DID think it was their business, eh, Deep Thinker ™ ?

Well, you know, there are some people out there who I don’t give much credit for being deep thinkers and there are a certain special select few who can’t clear the hurdle even if I remove the “deep” part.

alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM

*cue the laugh track* another Deep Thought ™ from our very own Jack Handey.

Madden provides a perfectly reasonable opinion that Palin was not a “seasoned” veteran and had not been “vetted”. He didn’t spread any “rumors” he just questioned the wisdom of choosing her as the veep candidate. You are free to disagree with that opinion but it’s hardly evidence of “trashing” Palin. As I’ve repeatedly noted “criticism” is not necessarily synonymous with “sliming” or “trashing”. Sometimes it’s just…criticism

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 12:49 AM

So according to your thinking, If Sarah Palin said that Romney was not the right Person to be our nominee because under Romney’s term, Massachusetts ranked near the bottom in job creation, and that Romney doesn’t have a real Consevative core because he has flip-flopped on so many conservative issues, and she made those comment just a few days before the general election, that would be just “criticism” and nothing else. Well in that case I hope that is something she should consider..:)

Well, you know, there are some people out there who I don’t give much credit for being deep thinkers and there are a certain special select few who can’t clear the hurdle even if I remove the “deep” part.
alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM

“Huh? What’s a ‘hurdle’?” – idesign

idesign on April 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Madden was responding to controversy which had been dominating the news about Palin’s vocal dissatisfaction with the McCain team, who she felt were too controlling. He didn’t just show up and begin criticizing her out of the blue (and much of his criticism was directed at McCain’s vetting team), nor could he put that genie back in the bottle. Do you think it was wise of her to voice those concerns publicly? She made this a public controversy. The veep candidate is supposed to stay on message, but she chose instead to go rogue —by her own admission. In addition to her grumbling about her handlers, the clothing story was dominating the news (which was admittedly very unfair to Palin) but she ended up keeping it in the news rather than just letting it die down. There’s plenty of fault to go around, but for you to allege she’s a victim of a whispering campaign started by Romney’s team is not an accurate or objective reading of the situation.

*cue the laugh track* another Deep Thought ™ from our very own Jack Handey.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 8:18 AM

I see you’re reduced to stealing my material. Oh well, as casting director, I’ve awarded you one more role… this is so you.

But my job would not be finished without one last award: idesign will assume the role of Inspector Clouseau as he bungles his way through “The Mystery of Operation Leper”.

I see you’re reduced to stealing my material. Oh well, as casting director, I’ve awarded you one more role… this is so you.

But my job would not be finished without one last award: idesign will assume the role of Inspector Clouseau as he bungles his way through “The Mystery of Operation Leper”.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Huh? I’m pretty sure you thought there was a knee-slapper in there somewhere. Condescending pompous-ass ‘bot humor is only for the more refined, I guess.

Do you think it was wise of her to voice those concerns publicly? She made this a public controversy. The veep candidate is supposed to stay on message, but she chose instead to go rogue —by her own admission. In addition to her grumbling about her handlers, the clothing story was dominating the news (which was admittedly very unfair to Palin) but she ended up keeping it in the news rather than just letting it die down.

Of course. She was supposed to stand there and look pretty and take the sliming in good cheer. Meanwhile if we didn’t all have an aneurysm over Hilary Rosen’s pretty mild “criticism” of Ann Romney, or join in the general hilarity over several days’ worth of bad “dog-eating” jokes, we were Marxists.

Perhaps you’d be better of watching SNL reruns of Jack Handey’s “Deep Thoughts” than try to make your case here…

Buy Danish on April 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

I don’t make a habit of plowing through all of your permanent-PMS-induced pearl-clutching blather, so didn’t notice that one. But Handey would seem to fit Deep Thinkers ™ like you and alchemist better.

Still don’t get that (I guess) hilarious Clouseau-Operation Leper joke.

Meanwhile if we didn’t all have an aneurysm over Hilary Rosen’s pretty mild “criticism” of Ann Romney, or join in the general hilarity over several days’ worth of bad “dog-eating” jokes, we were Marxists.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

No, you were just being your typical humorless, curmudgeonly self. And do note – no one, not a single person stamped their feet demanding Palin defend Ann Romney.

But my job would not be finished without one last award: idesign will assume the role of Inspector Clouseau as he bungles his way through “The Mystery of Operation Leper”.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

But you never responded to my reply, I wonder why?

To many Consevatives, Romney seems to have no core and as Governer his state ranked near the bottom in job growth during his term. So there should be no problem with Palin voicing these concerns a few days before the coming election, because it’s only “criticism”….right?

Well, I’ll tell you what, Deep Thinker ™. We’ll have to keep those very words in mind when the anti-Romney memes start flying, OK? OK.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 8:04 AM

The media comments on politicians all the time. It’s the nature of their business ever since they gave up reporting the news in an unbiased way. Politicians generally don’t comment on things that strictly involve the media (i.e.: leftist media figures blame right-wing media figures for Tragedy “X”) or anything else outside of their sphere unless someone in the media tries to make them do it. There might be an exception or two but it’s a rare practice.

Is it just that you’re really new to politics and the political media so you’ve not had a chance to see how this works yet? If so then keep your eyes peeled and you should pick up on it pretty fast.

no one, not a single person stamped their feet demanding Palin defend Ann Romney.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Sure there were. There were quite a few “When is Sarah going to defend Mrs Romney? When is Sarah going to weigh in? Sarah’s strangely silent” comments. Just as in the coming weeks it’ll be washerwoman peasant Palin’s duty to defend Little Lord Fauntleroy when he gets Alinskyed.

The media comments on politicians all the time. It’s the nature of their business ever since they gave up reporting the news in an unbiased way. Politicians generally don’t comment on things that strictly involve the media (i.e.: leftist media figures blame right-wing media figures for Tragedy “X”) or anything else outside of their sphere unless someone in the media tries to make them do it.

alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

That’s some interesting deep thinking there, Deep Thinker ™ . The fact that Palin as hired by Fox News to do occasional political commentary makes her less of a “politician” than Romney, who hadn’t been a “real” politician since 2006. It also apparently gives others in the media carte blanche to smear her in any way, since it’s no one’s responsibility or business to stand up or defend a “right-wing media” type. And, of course, it totally absolves all those craven p*ssies like Romney who stood by and said nothing with an eye to protecting their own asses. The defendants needed you at Nuremberg, Deep Thinker ™ .

That’s some interesting deep thinking there, Deep Thinker ™ . The fact that Palin as hired by Fox News to do occasional political commentary makes her less of a “politician” than Romney, who hadn’t been a “real” politician since 2006. It also apparently gives others in the media carte blanche to smear her in any way, since it’s no one’s responsibility or business to stand up or defend a “right-wing media” type. And, of course, it totally absolves all those craven p*ssies like Romney who stood by and said nothing with an eye to protecting their own asses. The defendants needed you at Nuremberg, Deep Thinker ™ .

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You need to take issue with the person I quoted a ways back who said Romney has been running for president for six years, unless it’s your position that people who are merely seeking elected office don’t and shouldn’t have the “politician” moniker applied to them.

Nuremberg? You’re playing the Nazi card on me?!? I feel like Curly Bill after that opening shooting in the movie “Tombstone”.

You need to take issue with the person I quoted a ways back who said Romney has been running for president for six years, unless it’s your position that people who are merely seeking elected office don’t and shouldn’t have the “politician” moniker applied to them.

You sit there in your dumbass condescension with your self-designated Deep Thinker ™ label talking about the “pretzel logic” of others, while twisting yourself into knots trying to justify GOP silence — including that of Romney — while Palin and the TP were being smeared. Romney was a “politician” because people running for office are “politicians” even though, at the time, Romney wasn’t technically running for anything and held no office. Meanwhile Palin was fair game because, even though at the time she was as much a “politician” as Romney, she was being paid to do occasional political commentary for Fox.

Nuremberg? You’re playing the Nazi card on me?!? I feel like Curly Bill after that opening shooting in the movie “Tombstone”.

“Looks like we win!”

alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 3:06 PM

OK, substitute the Stalinist show trials for Nuremberg, if that makes you feel any better. The point stands.

And you idiots sit around pontificating about “bitter clingers” and “Palinistas” and “party unity”. You make me sick.

But you never responded to my reply, I wonder why?
idesign on April 29, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I’m really not in the mood to argue tedious topics you seem eager to discuss but are not in any way relevant to anything under discussion (allegations Palin was smeared by Team Mitt). Therefore I responded to what was germane to the discussion, not your propaganda about employment statistics and hypothetical scenarios you’ve dreamed up.

Sure there were. There were quite a few “When is Sarah going to defend Mrs Romney? When is Sarah going to weigh in? Sarah’s strangely silent” comments.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I didn’t see that. I would imagine there might have been some sarcasm involved there since you and others have created a New Rule where politicians are obligated to jump in and make a statement anytime a fellow Republican is attacked (and not wait to be asked about it).

Meanwhile Palin was fair game because, even though at the time she was as much a “politician” as Romney, she was being paid to do occasional political commentary for Fox.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Palin became an issue because she had produced a map which targeted districts, like those of Congresswoman Giffords, with crosshairs. I don’t recall Romney doing that.

Now, was this ginned up outrage by the Left and their media allies blaming Palin for those shootings she had nothing to do with and didn’t encourage despicable and unwarranted? Absolutely. But there was no reason for Romney to get in the middle of this. If he’d been asked about it he would have responded, but as far as I can tell he wasn’t. So there you have it….

Palin became an issue because she had produced a map which targeted districts, like those of Congresswoman Giffords, with crosshairs. I don’t recall Romney doing that.

I don’t recall Palin strapping a dog to her roof, either, but I suppose we’re supposed to do our damnedest to make sure that doesn’t become a meme du jour, eh?

Now, was this ginned up outrage by the Left and their media allies blaming Palin for those shootings she had nothing to do with and didn’t encourage despicable and unwarranted? Absolutely. But there was no reason for Romney to get in the middle of this.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Of course there wasn’t. It’s a lot easier to sit there and have your little ‘bot army crow about Palin’s “high negatives” than to actually, you know, defend the woman.

You sit there in your dumbass condescension with your self-designated Deep Thinker ™ label talking about the “pretzel logic” of others, while twisting yourself into knots trying to justify GOP silence — including that of Romney — while Palin and the TP were being smeared.

I’m not justifying anything, merely explaining it. Media criticisms of media personalities rarely if ever draw comment from politicians who aren’t involved. To my knowledge there was no one in or actively seeking out elected office who ran in to defend Rush when flat-out made-up lies about him cost him a chance to buy the St. Louis Rams. I don’t recall many US Senators jumping into Olbermann’s wars with O’Reilly or when Beck’s had things said about him. Yet you’ve got some grudge against Romney, who was running for president at the time (or so I’ve been told), for doing what is standard operating procedure for most every politician in this situation. I don’t recall Perry sticking up for her. Are you just as mad at him as you are at Mitt or did I miss Perry’s statements (if I’m wrong I’m happy to be informed if you’ve got links). When Newt was asked about it he said Palin needs to think through what she says (thus implying she doesn’t) so have you been holding him to the same standard you’ve set for Mitt?

And like I said, if lots of elected officials did call press conferences to defend Palin after Tucson like you’re saying Romney should have then I’m happy to have this gap in my knowledge filled in.

As a quick aside, I’m surprised you think a mama grizzly tough-as-nails American version of Margaret Thatcher like Palin needs Ward Clever defending her. Palin’s tougher than Mitt Romney ever thought about being. Why are you treating her like she’s some damsel in distress who needs the boys to ride in and stick up for her?

Romney was a “politician” because people running for office are “politicians” even though, at the time, Romney wasn’t technically running for anything and held no office. Meanwhile Palin was fair game because, even though at the time she was as much a “politician” as Romney, she was being paid to do occasional political commentary for Fox.

That is exactly what I meant when I said you need to take issue with the person I quoted a ways back who said Mitt had been running for president for six years.

OK, substitute the Stalinist show trials for Nuremberg, if that makes you feel any better. The point stands.

And you idiots sit around pontificating about “bitter clingers” and “Palinistas” and “party unity”. You make me sick.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Now here’s something that going back to what I said before about your tendency to group people. I am a bitter clinger yet here you accuse me of pontificating about them. Despite as mad at me as you appear to be I’m glad that you could look past it enough to lend support to my point from earlier. I appreciate it. :-)

I don’t recall Palin strapping a dog to her roof, either, but I suppose we’re supposed to do our damnedest to make sure that doesn’t become a meme du jour, eh?
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

No she didn’t strap a dog to her roof. Why would something that didn’t happen become a meme? However, she does shoot moose and stuff and was criticized by Useful Idiots like this. Did you want R to call a press conference to defend her for that too? And since you brought it up, did Palin issue a statement to defend Romney from the attacks from Axelrod over Seamus? Or did Eric F (and the twitterverse and blogs like this) handle it just fine using without any help from her?

As a quick aside, I’m surprised you think a mama grizzly tough-as-nails American version of Margaret Thatcher like Palin needs Ward Clever defending her. Palin’s tougher than Mitt Romney ever thought about being. Why are you treating her like she’s some damsel in distress who needs the boys to ride in and stick up for her?
alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Yep, there’s a strange dichotomy there….

Of course there wasn’t. It’s a lot easier to sit there and have your little ‘bot army crow about Palin’s “high negatives” than to actually, you know, defend the woman.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I should have commented on this too….

She had high negatives well before Tuscon. I have no idea how other “bots” responded to this incident (I seriously doubt they chose this moment to align with the Left and pile-on and accuse her of inciting Loughner) and I also doubt the focus was to “crow” about her “high negatives” during that controversy. I know I didn’t, so your theory about “[my] little bot army” is just another example of your tendency to make inanely foolish statements (and erect straw men).

But you know, I’m beginning to get the idea you think Tuscon was why Palin decided not to run. That if not for that everything would have been hunky-dory and she’d be our nominee right now. And it’s all Romney’s fault for not coming to her defense. Yep, it’s becoming much clearer to me why you’re obsessing over this point…

Good argument IF you start with the utterly dishonest stipulation that Palin is exactly analogous to Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Olbermann. You know better, which is why you come up with such a pretzel argument in the first place. Rationalization. If that’s “deep thought”…

She had high negatives well before Tuscon. I have no idea how other “bots” responded to this incident (I seriously doubt they chose this moment to align with the Left and pile-on and accuse her of inciting Loughner) and I also doubt the focus was to “crow” about her “high negatives” during that controversy. I know I didn’t, so your theory about “[my] little bot army” is just another example of your tendency to make inanely foolish statements (and erect straw men).

The high negatives were largely the result of media smears from the beginning. And don’t give me this backtracking b.s. that Romney supporters never “crowed” about Palin’s negative numbers. They/you positively reveled in it. Constantly.

But you know, I’m beginning to get the idea you think Tuscon was why Palin decided not to run.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM

No. It was a combination of things. I personally think she decided not to run after the “Paul Revere” garbage. Go back and check out that thread and see how many of the ‘bots were gleefully piling on on that occasion. That was just one of MANY occasions.

As a quick aside, I’m surprised you think a mama grizzly tough-as-nails American version of Margaret Thatcher like Palin needs Ward Clever defending her. Palin’s tougher than Mitt Romney ever thought about being. Why are you treating her like she’s some damsel in distress who needs the boys to ride in and stick up for her?
alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Yep, there’s a strange dichotomy there….

As an even quicker aside, by the way, no that’s not a “strange dichotomy”. That’s what you call yet another ‘bot straw man.

The high negatives were largely the result of media smears from the beginning. And don’t give me this backtracking b.s. that Romney supporters never “crowed” about Palin’s negative numbers. They/you positively reveled in it. Constantly.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

You just got through saying “[my] bot army” specifically chose to use the Tuscon saga to point to Palin’s unfavorables. Yes, her ratings were an issue as a potential general election candidate, but you’re lying your diapered-ass off, when you allege I used that saga to make an issue of them and asked my mythical army to do the same.

No. It was a combination of things. I personally think she decided not to run after the “Paul Revere” garbage. Go back and check out that thread and see how many of the ‘bots were gleefully piling on on that occasion. That was just one of MANY occasions

This is absurd. Of all the things she’s been criticized for, this is at the bottom of the list. But, if you insist on bringing that up, her entire trip was reasonably criticized as a free vacation for her and her kids, paid for with PAC money. And she didn’t help herself when she tried to take the wind out of the sails of Romney’s formal announcement that he was a candidate for the Presidency by showing up in N.H. the very same day. He handled it gracefully, but that was a regrettable stunt on her part and cost her support. Nor did it help that she teased her supporters all summer long, when it was clear she had no organization in place to run. She ended up looking like someone seeking attention, not a serious potential candidate. Newt made similar errors, as did Herman Cain – albeit for different reasons. She’s a charismatic politician and she’s terrific in many ways, but she’s a lightning rod for criticism —and in some cases she builds the rod.

As an even quicker aside, by the way, no that’s not a “strange dichotomy”. That’s what you call yet another ‘bot straw man.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Oookay. She’s a complex woman… a tough as nails mama grizzly one minute, and a tender flower who needs Romney to hold press conferences to keep her from wilting the next. She’s the new feminine ideal…

Good argument IF you start with the utterly dishonest stipulation that Palin is exactly analogous to Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Olbermann. You know better, which is why you come up with such a pretzel argument in the first place. Rationalization. If that’s “deep thought”…

Palin doesn’t need to be exactly analogous to them, the fact of the matter is she’s a lot closer to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Olbermann and Beck than she is Ryan, Perry, Rubio or Romney.

Palin doesn’t need to be exactly analogous to them, the fact of the matter is she’s a lot closer to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Olbermann and Beck than she is Ryan, Perry, Rubio or Romney.
alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Palin doesn’t need to be exactly analogous to them, the fact of the matter is she’s a lot closer to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Olbermann and Beck than she is Ryan, Perry, Rubio or Romney.

alchemist19 on April 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Yeah, right. Ryan, Perry, Rubio and PALIN are the only ones in that group who’ve held any kind of office since 2006. And that will still hold true after November, when Mitt can join Fred on the commercial scene or else be Obama’s goodwill ambassador for something or other. Good try, though.